90 DAYS TO MEET CONSENT DECREE CHANGES IN STANDARDS HAMPER PROGRESS AT POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Byline: Rick Orlov and Phillip W. Browne Staff Writers

With a chorus of criticism rising from the ranks, the LAPD faces the prospect of tying up millions of dollars and hundreds of officers for up to five more years unless it can achieve substantial compliance with the federal consent decree in the next 90 days.

Union leaders and some city officials fear it will be difficult for the Los Angeles Police Department to meet the June 15 deadline for showing 95 percent compliance with the consent decree's nearly 200 provisions.

In part, they blame those overseeing the court order - the monitor, police officials and commissioners - because they keep changing the standards.

The decree is costing about $30 million a year and ties up hundreds of officers in ensuring implementation, although there is some dispute - both upward and downward - about the numbers. If the LAPD is found to be in substantial compliance the decree can be lifted in two years, but a new five-year cycle starts if it is ruled to have fallen short.

``I'm concerned the monitor does not stay consistent in the requests and requirements it sets forth, which makes the consent decree seem like a never-ending, impossible process,'' police union director Mitzi Grasso wrote in the Los Angeles Police Protective League's newsletter, ``Thin Blue Line.''

The forms that have to be completed by the officers in the field, for instance, are becoming more and more detailed, adding to the workload of an already understaffed department.

``To write books on each day's work simply means more officers out of the field and we have fewer resources to do what we are paid for and what the public expects: police work,'' Grasso wrote.

Some of this came to a head last week when San Fernando Valley-area commanders complained about what they see as the changing rules that will hinder their ability to meet the terms of the consent decree.

Capt. Joe Curreri, who heads the Devonshire Division, is among the police commanders concerned about the changing standards and the manpower being used to achieve compliance. He noted that the LAPD's detention logs - forms that have to be filled out for every person arrested, brought in for questioning or booked for a crime - have been revised three times, with each version requiring greater detail.

``If we forget to check one box, or if we leave a box unchecked because it wasn't relevant, the form is seen to be out of compliance and it's tossed out in review,'' said Curreri, who has assigned a sergeant and three officers to work solely on compliance issues.

``It seems that the rules keep changing and changing, and we're auditing and doing more auditing.

``If things are not written down or reported properly within the context of the decree regulations, it's as good as if it did not happen, and the report is not in compliance,'' he said.

But Gerald Chaleff, a criminal defense lawyer who helped engineer the consent decree as head of the Police Commission and now is in charge of making sure its conditions are met, believes the department can end the federal oversight in two years.

``We are doing all they ask,'' Chaleff said. ``There are some areas of disagreement, but we think those can be worked out and the city will be cleared of this.''

Many oversight details were hammered out last year by a working group composed of city officials and Kroll Associates, a consulting company that is being paid $2 million annually to monitor compliance.

``If anything, the monitor has been very agreeable to easing many of the requirements on patrol officers,'' said Chaleff, who has about 50 officers working under him on compliance issues. ``The biggest areas of concern remain supervisory staff and not the officers in the field.''

Officials with Kroll did not return phone calls. But in its most recent written report to the city, the company said the LAPD had come far in meeting its goals.

``While ... areas of concern persist, the monitor remains encouraged by the progress of the LAPD in instituting reforms for the problems it still faces,'' the report said. ``We remain optimistic that full compliance with the consent decree will be achieved.''

It is comments such as that which encourage Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, chairwoman of the council's Public Safety Committee that oversees the LAPD and its implementation of the consent decree.

``I think the chances of us meeting the June 15 deadline are good,'' Miscikowski said. ``The monitor has made a point of saying he has seen substantive change.

``Where we have had failings has been in the area of documentation and we are dealing with that now. It's not just paperwork to make paperwork, it is a system change.''

Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who was chief of police when the consent decree was adopted, however, said he is not convinced the city will be able to say it has achieved substantive compliance.

``What I see is a department that continues to restructure and reorganize and there is no way the consent decree can be met,'' Parks said.

``I don't have a sense the consent decree or its demands have changed as much as the reorganization of the department has made it more difficult to say whether the city is in compliance. In some sense, the department has been its own worst enemy. The consent decree talks about a basic set of rules and the department is changing where those rules apply.''

The consent decree between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice was enacted three years ago in the wake of a scandal at the Rampart Division, where some anti-gang unit officers were accused of beating suspects and planting evidence to win convictions.

The five-year agreement was signed with the stipulation the LAPD can get out from under it after the department achieves two consecutive years of compliance. Getting the decree lifted is viewed as a priority by the city because of the need to achieve reforms, as well as the high costs for personnel and equipment.

Deputy Chief Legislative Analyst Barbara Garrett estimated this year's cost at $30 million, including personnel and the amortized cost of a $35 million computer system.

Not included is the $15.2 million spent for hand-held devices that officers will use to track the race and personal information of people stopped in the field. The devices failed to work properly during a debut press conference earlier this month.

City Councilman Dennis Zine, a retired police officer who has been one of the more outspoken critics of the consent decree and its costs, also expressed concern about the changing standards for compliance.

``It seems like the requirements keep changing for no apparent reason.''

Miscikowski said the city has managed to deflect some of the proposed changes.

``There is some hairsplitting and nit-picking, but for the most part, the city and the department has stood tough and said there can't be more demands,'' Miscikowski said.

``We've been saying there can't be more and more demands, and there needs to be an acknowledgment of what can be done.''

Miscikowski also said the city is prepared to go to court if the monitor finds the LAPD is out of compliance on minor issues.

``If we are hitting the broad marks of the consent decree, we should get credit for that.''

Mayor James Hahn, who was involved in negotiating the decree when he was city attorney, remains committed to its goals, an aide said.

``The mayor believes any difficulties can be worked out, but the most important thing is for the LAPD to re-establish its credibility with the public by following the terms of the consent decree,'' spokeswoman Elizabeth Kaltman said.

Police Chief William Bratton, who was part of the independent team involved in negotiating the original consent decree before he became chief, has been outspoken in his desire to see the decree come to an end. In addition to the costs of implementation, he has said it has hamstrung his ability to allocate and discipline his officers.

Bratton said he believes the LAPD is making strides toward meeting the terms of the consent decree.

Even if the department falls short of meeting technical goals, Bratton said he hopes the court rules the LAPD is in compliance if there's evidence the department is close to meeting the goals.

``I'm very comfortable we'll hit the deadline,'' Bratton said. ``Will we be 100 percent on the mark? Probably not. There is a certain arbitrary nature to the consent decree and the judge can decide we're coming into compliance.''

Bratton said the consent decree has caused stress within the LAPD and cost millions of dollars.

``There's a much more in-place bureaucracy to monitor, to measure and to move forward,'' he said. ``We're in a crunch time. Everything in life increases in pressure as you get closer to a deadline.''

Police Commission President David Cunningham III said he also wants to see the decree come to an end.

``I think if there needs to be some modifications, we can make them,'' Cunningham said. ``We've already come a long way and I think that will be recognized. We are a better police department because of changes we've made in our use-of-force policy and with the gang units.

``Now, it's making sure we do the other things that are needed. At the end of the day, it won't be the union that decides this or the department. It will be the federal judge.''

If the police union has specific issues in dispute, Cunningham said they can be raised with the working group.

Councilman Greig Smith, who serves as a reserve LAPD officer, said the biggest complaint he hears from officers is the amount of paperwork now required.

``It takes an additional hour in some cases to fill out all the forms needed when you make an arrest,'' Smith said. ``It used to be you could say in a report you canvassed an area for witnesses. Now, you have to fill out a card for everyone you contact, even if they don't know anything.''

Cmdr. Valentino Paniccia, assistant commanding officer of the Valley Bureau, agreed the biggest change has been in the forms that have to be filled out.

``We went into a learning process. We rewrote the regulation book, remodeled the paperwork and trained the officers, and it took a while for the engines to get moving,'' Paniccia said. ``All of this takes effort of the LAPD's entire 9,200 employees dedicated to their job.''

The head of the police union said the decree and its implementation are ``onerous'' burdens.

``While we have always supported the intentions of the consent decree to provide meaningful and effective reforms at the Department, we all have concerns about how onerous the consent decree and its implementation process have been,'' PPL President Bob Baker said.

Staff Writers Jason Kandel and James Nash contributed to this report.

Rick Orlov, [phone]

rick.orlov(at)dailynews.com